basbas vs. sayson, 2011 - judgment on the pleadings_summary judgment

8/8/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson, 2011 - Judgment on the Pleadings_Summary Judgment

1/19

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 172660 August 24, 2011

EUGENIO BASBAS, TEOFILO ARAS, RUFINO ARAS, GERVACIO BASBAS,

ISMAEL ARAS, EUGENIO ARAS, SIMFRONIO ARAS, FELICIANO ARAS,ROSITA ARAS, EUGENIO BASBAS, JR. !" S#OUSES #ABLITO

BASARTE !" MARCELINA BASBAS BASARTE,

vs.

BEATA SA$SON !" ROBERTO SA$SON, JR., Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

%EL CASTILLO, J.:

Petitioners seek to prevent the revival of a jud!ent rendered in favor of the

respondents !ore than t"o de#ades $a#k.

This Petition for Revie" on Certiorari assails the Fe$ruar% &'( )**+

De#ision& of the Court of ,ppeals -C, in C,/0.R. CV No. ')123 "hi#h denied

the appeal 4led $efore it and a5r!ed in toto the 6a% )&( )**& Order ) of the

Reional Trial Court of Or!o# Cit%( 7ran#h 13. ,lso assailed is the ,pril &8(

)**9 Resolution1 den%in the 6otion for Re#onsideration thereto.

Factual Antecedents

On Septe!$er )( &8'9( respondent 7eata Sa%son -7eata and her hus$andRo$erto Sa%son( Sr. -Ro$erto Sr. 4led a Petition for Reistration of an

ari#ultural land lo#ated in Ca$atan( 7alatas( 6ata/o$( :e%te do#keted

as :and Reistration Case No. */&''. The said appli#ation "as opposed $%

the Repu$li# of the Philippines and herein petitioners Euenio 7as$as

-Euenio Sr.( Teo4lo ,ras -Teo4lo and Ru4no ,ras -Ru4no. On 6ar#h ))(

&8'8( the Court of First Instan#e -CFI of :e%te( 7ran#h V -Or!o# Cit%

rendered a De#ision adjudi#atin to the spouses Sa%son said ari#ultural

land and approvin its reistration under their na!es.+

The oppositors 4led their appeal to the C, do#keted as C,/0.R. No. 993+&. Ina De#ision3 dated ;ul% )+( &823( the appellate #ourt a5r!ed in toto the

De#ision of the CFI. This C, De#ision $e#a!e 4nal and e


2/19

&8'8 CFI De#ision. ,n ,lias =rit of Possession "as issued on ,pril 9( &828

$ut this #ould also not $e i!ple!ented in vie" of the refusal of Euenio Sr.

and his son Euenio 7as$as( ;r. -Euenio ;r.. Clai!in that the land the%

o##upied is not the sa!e land su$je#t of the CFI De#ision(2 the% de!anded

that a relo#ation surve% $e #ondu#ted. >en#e( a relo#ation surve% "as

#ondu#ted $% order of the Reional Trial Court -RTC( 7ran#h &)( Or!o# Cit%.8

In an Order&* dated Septe!$er &1( &828( the RTC approved the

Co!!issioner?s Report&& on the relo#ation surve% and ordered the oriinal

oppositors( petitioners Euenio Sr.( Teo4lo and Ru4no( as "ell as their #o/

petitioners herein 0erva#io 7as$as -0erva#io( Is!ael ,ras -Is!ael( Euenio

,ras -Euenio( Si!fronio ,ras -Si!fronio( Feli#iano ,ras -Feli#iano( Rosita

,ras -Rosita and Euenio ;r. to va#ate the su$je#t propert%( viz @

ARBespondents are dire#ted to va#ate the portion of :ot No. &( Psu/*2/***)13

#overed $% OCT No. )+89 and su$je#t of the 4nal de#ree of reistration"hi#h( Aup to theB present( said respondents are still possessin pursuant to

the 4nal and e


3/19

No. 11&)/*. I!pleaded as defendants "ere Euenio Sr.( Teo4lo( Ru4no(

0erva#io( Is!ael( Euenio( Si!fronio( Feli#iano( Rosita( and Euenio ;r.

Petitioner/spouses Pa$lito 7asarte and 6ar#elina 7as$as/Sa$arte&' -spouses

7asarte( "ho( althouh not identi4ed in the Septe!$er &1( &828 Order as

prin#ipal oppositors in the land reistration #ase( "ere like"ise i!pleaded as

defendants sin#e the% also alleedl% harvested( pro#essed( and sold the#o#onuts found in the su$je#t propert%.

pon re#eipt of su!!ons( 0erva#io( Ru4no( Is!ael( Euenio( Feli#iano(

Rosita and Euenio ;r. 4led a 6otion to Dis!iss&2 on the round that the

Co!plaint states no #ause of a#tion. This "as( ho"ever( denied&8 so the

sa!e set of petitioners( eonora$le ;ude Nu!eriano Esteno

rendered a de#ision in the a$ove/!entioned :and Reistration A#Base in

favor of the petitioners < < < and aainst the oppositors( the dispositive

portion of said de#ision reads@

=>EREFORE( de#ision is here$% rendered < < < AandB the land

des#ri$ed under Plan PS/*2/***)13 dated Septe!$er &*( &8'1 of 0eodeti# Enineer Nestorio En#eno alread% ,PPROVED $% the ,#tin

Reional Dire#tor on ;une )'( &8'+ is here$% adjudi#ated and

reistered in the na!es of the Spouses RO7ERTO S,SON and 7E,T,

O. S,SON( of leal aes( Filipinos( spouses and residents of

Ca!pokpok( Ta$ano( :e%te( Philippines and as soon as this de#ision

$e#o!es 4nal( let a de#ree of reistration $e issued $% the :and

Reistration Co!!ission.

SO ORDERED.? -< < onora$le Court of ,ppeals rendered its

de#ision( the dispositive portion Aof "hi#hB reads@

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt20


4/19

=>EREFORE( PRE6ISES CONSIDERED( 4ndin no !erit in this appeal

the de#ision appealed fro! is here$% ,FFIR6ED in toto.

SO ORDERED.?

and the said de#ision has $e#o!e 4nal and e


5/19

"hi#h at present AisB alread% de4ned and indi#ated on the round.? The

#o!!issioner also atta#hed a Sket#h Plan of the land to his report. < <

<

&). That( 4nall%( the >onora$le Court( on Septe!$er &1( &828 issued

an Order approvin the Co!!issioner?s Report and further stated@

ARBespondents -defendants herein are dire#ted to va#ate the portion of :ot

No. &( Psu/*2/***)13 #overed $% OCT No. )+89 and su$je#t of 4nal de#ree of

reistration "hi#h( until AtheB present( said respondents are still possessin(

pursuant to the 4nal and e


6/19

7asarte and 6ar#elina 7as$as 7asarte "ere not na!ed as a!on the

oppositors in the land reistration #ase "hose de#ision is herein souht

to $e revived( said spouses are nonetheless parti#ipatin in the

harvest( pro#essin and sale of the #o#onuts "ith the other defendants

na!ed a$oveG

1. PlaintiJs 7eata Sa%son and her late hus$and( Ro$erto Sa%son are

petitioners in :and Reistration Case No. */&'' for the reistration of a

par#el of ari#ultural land situated in 7arrio 7alatas( 6ata/o$( :e%te(

4led on Septe!$er )( &8'9 "ith the then Court of First Instan#e of

:e%te( 7ran#h V( Or!o# Cit%. The a$ove/na!ed defendants( na!el%@

Euenio 7as$as( Teo4lo ,ras( 0erva#io 7as$as( Ru4no ,ras( Is!ael

,ras( Euenio ,ras( Si!fronio ,ras( Feli#iano ,ras( Rosita ,ras and

Euenio 7as$as( ;r. "ere oppositors to the appli#ationG))

< < < <

&1. That despite this ad!onition in the ASepte!$er &1( &828B AOBrder

that the% #ould $e #ited for #onte!pt of Court( the respondents(

defendants herein( had #ontinuousl% de4ed the sa!e and this

not"ithstandin the fa#t that it "as upon their o"n de!ands and

insisten#e that a relo#ation surve% $e !ade on the pre!ises su$je#t of

this #ase $efore the% "ould o$e% the alias "rit of possession < < < and

that the 4ndinAsB of the CourtA/Bappointed Co!!issioner Enr. ;ose ,.

Tahil sho" that the oppositors/respondents did Aen#roa#hB on the land

of plaintiJs hereinG

&+. That this ASepte!$er &1( &828B Order ho"ever "as not

i!ple!ented thru a =rit of E


7/19

losses and da!aes $% reason of defendants? unla"ful o##upation and

possession and their #ontinued harvestin of the produ#e of this land

of the herein plaintiJs.)1

7% "a% of spe#ial and a5r!ative defenses( said petitioners #ontended that

the Order souht to $e revived is not the Ljud!entL #onte!plated underSe#tion 9( Rule 18 of the Rules of Court( hen#e the a#tion for revival of

jud!ent is i!proper. ,lso( e


8/19

('*ous )o!t&!t*o!s, t& Cou't *s o t& (*&5 tt t& )o-*!t "

to -**t *ts&- to t& !&s o t& o'*g*!- 't*&s &'*!g *! t&

o'*g*!- :u"g&!t !o5 +&*!g sougt o' '&(*(-. The interest of the

plaintiJs in seekin i!ple!entation or e


9/19

7asarte( and 1 Euenio 7as$as( ;r.G and for Teo4lo ,ras & Is!ael ,ras( )

Vi#ente ,ras( 1 :ia%a ,ras( + Rosendo ,ras( and 3 Daina ,ras.

Sin#e fro! the re#ords( onl% 0erva#io 7as$as( Euenio 7as$as( ;r. and Is!ael

,ras "ere dul% served "ith su!!ons( the 7ran#h Clerk of Court is here$%

dire#ted to serve su!!ons on the other heirs( na!el%@ 6ar#elina 7as$as7asarte( Vi#ente ,ras( :ia%a ,ras( Rosendo ,ras( and Daina ,ras.

< < <


10/19

Respondents su$seHuentl% 4led an O!ni$us 6otion for ;ud!ent on the

Pleadins andKor Su!!ar% ;ud!ent.+* The% #ontended that sin#e

petitioners? ,ns"er failed to tender an issue( the% havin een#e( said #ourt issued an Order+) dated 6a% )&( )**&( the

dispositive portion of "hi#h reads@

=herefore( 4ndin !erit in the !otion( jud!ent is here$% rendered for and

in favor of the plaintiJs and aainst the defendants orderin the revival of

the de#ision of the Court of ,ppeals pro!ulated on ;ul% )+( &823 a5r!in

the de#ree of reistration of this Court in the de#ision of the :and

Reistration Case No. */&'' dated 6ar#h ))( &8'8( and of the 4nal Order of

this Court dated Septe!$er &1( &828 and upon 4nalit% of this Order( orderin

the issuan#e of =rit of Possession for the lot !ade su$je#t of the de#ision.

=ithout pronoun#e!ent as to #osts.

SO ORDERED.+1

Petitioners thus 4led a Noti#e of ,ppeal++ "hi#h "as approved in an Order

dated ;une *9( )**&.+3

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt45


11/19

Findin no !erit in the appeal( the C, denied the sa!e in a De#ision +9 dated

Fe$ruar% &'( )**+. It noted that petitioners? ,ns"er ad!itted al!ost all of

the alleations in respondents? #o!plaint. >en#e( the RTC #o!!itted no

reversi$le error "hen it ranted respondents? 6otion for ;ud!ent on the

Pleadins andKor Su!!ar% ;ud!ent. The appellate #ourt like"ise found

untena$le the issue as reards the failure of the #o!plaint to state a #auseof a#tion. To the appellate #ourt( petitioners? refusal to va#ate the su$je#t

propert% despite the 4nal and eonora$le Court of ,ppeals #learl% #o!!itted serious errors of

la" in its de#ision and Resolution dated Fe$ruar% &'( )**+ and ,pril

&8( )**9 "hen it a5r!ed the Order of the Reional Trial Court dated

6a% )&( )**& and de#lared that no reversi$le error "as #o!!itted $%

the Reional Trial Court of Or!o# Cit% in rantin respondents? !otion

for jud!ent on the pleadins andKor su!!ar% jud!entG

). The >onora$le Court of ,ppeals #learl% #o!!itted serious errors of

la" in its De#ision and Resolution dated Fe$ruar% &'( )**+ and ,pril

&8( )**9 "hen it a5r!ed the Order of the Reional Trial Court of

Or!o# Cit% dated 6a% )&( )**& and de#lared that petitioners?

aru!ent that respondents? #o!plaint failed to state a #ause of a#tion

has no !erit.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt49


12/19

1. The >onora$le Court of ,ppeals #learl% #o!!itted serious errors of

la" "hen it a5r!ed the Order of the Reional Trial Court of Or!o# Cit%

"hi#h ordered the revival of the ;ud!ent of this Court of ,ppeals in

C,/0.R. No. 993+& entitled 7eata Sa%son and Ro$erto Sa%son vs.

Euenio 7as$as( et al.( despite the fa#t that this "as not the jud!ent

souht to $e revived in Civil Case No. 11&)/*G

+. The >onora$le Court of ,ppeals #learl% #o!!itted serious errors of

la" in rulin that the dul% notaried Spe#ial Po"er of ,ttorne% in favor

of Ro$erto Sa%sonA(B ;r. is valid and the latter is authoried to represent

his !other( 7eata Sa%sonA(B "hi#h is #ontrar% to the rulin in the #ase

of ,N0E:IT, :OPEM( represented $% PRISCI::, :. T vs. CORT OF

,PPE,:S( RE0ION,: TRI,: CORT OF EMON CIT < < < -0.R. No.

''**2( De#e!$er )8( &82'.3*

The Parties’ Arguments

Petitioners insist that a jud!ent on the pleadins or a su!!ar% jud!ent

is not proper in this #ase sin#e the #ontroverted stipulations and the 4rst

three issues enu!erated in the pre/trial order involve fa#ts "hi#h !ust $e

threshed out durin trial. The% also #lai! that the Co!plaint for Revival of

;ud!ent states no #ause of a#tion $e#ause the Septe!$er &1( &828 Order

"hi#h it souht to revive is not the Ljud!entL #onte!plated under Se#tion

9( Rule 18 of the Rules of Court and( therefore( #annot $e the su$je#t of su#h

an a#tion. 6oreover( the% arue that the C, De#ision in the land reistration

#ase should not have $een revived as sa!e "as not pra%ed for in the

Co!plaint for Revival of ;ud!ent. :astl%( petitioners assail the SP, "hi#h

authoried Ro$erto ;r. to represent his !other( 7eata( durin the pre/trial

#onferen#e( it not havin $een authenti#ated $% a Philippine #onsulate

o5#er in Canada "here it "as e


13/19

in support of the !otion are su5#ient to over#o!e the opposin papers and

to justif% a 4ndin as a !atter of la" that there is no defense to the a#tion or

the #lai! is #learl% !eritorious. ,nd sin#e( as found $% the C,( petitioners?

,ns"er did not tender an issue and that there is no defense to the a#tion(

the rant of the 6otion for ;ud!ent on the Pleadins andKor Su!!ar%

;ud!ent "as appropriate. Respondents like"ise #ontend that if their pra%erin the Co!plaint is taken in its proper #onte


14/19

!aterial alleations in the #o!plaint or ad!its said !aterial alleations of

the adverse part%?s pleadins $% ad!ittin the truthfulness thereof andKor

o!ittin to deal "ith the! at all( a jud!ent on the pleadins is

appropriate.3+ On the other hand( "hen the ,ns"er spe#i4#all% denies the

!aterial aver!ents of the #o!plaint or asserts a5r!ative defenses( or in

other "ords raises an issue( a su!!ar% jud!ent is proper provided that theissue raised is not enuine. L, enuine issue? !eans an issue of fa#t "hi#h

#alls for the presentation of eviden#e( as distinuished fro! an issue "hi#h is

4#titious or #ontrived or "hi#h does not #onstitute a enuine issue for trial.L33

a ;ud!ent on the pleadins is not proper $e#ause petitioners? ,ns"er

tendered issues.

In this #ase( "e note that "hile petitioners? ,ns"er to respondents?

Co!plaint pra#ti#all% ad!itted all the !aterial alleations therein( it

nevertheless asserts the a5r!ative defenses that the a#tion for revival of jud!ent is not the proper a#tion and that petitioners are not the proper

parties. ,s issues o$viousl% arise fro! these a5r!ative defenses( a

jud!ent on the pleadins is #learl% i!proper in this #ase.

>o"ever( $efore "e #onsider this #ase appropriate for the rendition of

su!!ar% jud!ent( an e


15/19

trial Order( "hi#h( a##ordin to the!( reHuire the presentation of eviden#e.

These stipulations and issues( ho"ever( "hen e


16/19

III. ,n% per#eived defe#t in the SP, "ould not serve to $ar the #ase fro!

pro#eedin.

,nent the SP,( "e 4nd that iven the parti#ular #ir#u!stan#es in the #ase at

$ar( an SP, is not even ne#essar% su#h that its e5#a#% or the la#k of it "ould

not in an% "a% pre#lude the #ase fro! pro#eedin. This is $e#ause uponRo$erto Sr.?s death( Ro$erto ;r.( in su##ession of his father( $e#a!e a #o/

o"ner of the su$je#t propert% toether "ith his !other( 7eata. ,s a #o/

o"ner( he !a%( $% hi!self alone( $rin an a#tion for the re#over% of the #o/

o"ned propert% pursuant to the "ell/settled prin#iple that Lin a #o/

o"nership( #o/o"ners !a% $rin a#tions for the re#over% of #o/o"ned

propert% "ithout the ne#essit% of joinin all the other #o/o"ners as #o/

plaintiJs $e#ause the suit is presu!ed to have $een 4led for the $ene4t of

his #o/o"ners.L38

=hile "e note that the present a#tion for revival of jud!ent is not an a#tionfor re#over%( the Septe!$er &1( &828 Order souht to $e revived herein

ordered the petitioners( a!on others( to va#ate the su$je#t propert%

pursuant to the 4nal and eEREFORE( the Petition for Revie" on Certiorari is DENIED and the assailed

De#ision of the Court of ,ppeals dated Fe$ruar% &'( )**+ and Resolution

dated ,pril &8( )**9 in C,/0.R. CV No. ')123 are ,FFIR6ED.

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. %EL CASTILLO

,sso#iate ;usti#e

Foot!ot&s

In lieu of ,sso#iate ;usti#e :u#as P. 7ersa!in per RaQe dated ,uust 2( )*&&.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#fnt60


17/19

& C, rollo( pp. &*)/&*8G penned $% ,sso#iate ;usti#e Elvi ;ohn S. ,sun#ion and #on#urred in $% ,sso#iate

;usti#es 0odardo ,. ;a#into and :u#as P. 7ersa!in -no" a 6e!$er of this Court.

) Re#ords( pp. ++*/++)G penned $% ;ude Fortunito :. 6adrona.

1 C, rollo( p. &)&.

+ See 4rst pae of C, De#ision dated ;ul% )+( &823 in C,/0.R. No. 993+&( re#ords( p. 2.

3 Id. at 2/&1G penned $% ,sso#iate ;usti#e :eonor Ines :u#iano and #on#urred in $% Presidin ;usti#e Ra!on

0. 0aviola( ;r.( and ,sso#iate ;usti#es Edardo P. Cauioa and 6a. Rosario uetulio/:osa.

9 See Entr% of ;ud!ent( id. at &+.

' Id. at &3.

2 See the -SheriJ?s Proress Report( id. at &9/&'.

8 See RTC Order dated ;une &9( &828( id. at &2.

&* Id. at )&/)).

&& Id. at &8/)*.

&) Id. at )).

&1 Id. at )&.

&+ Rules of Court( Rule 18( Se#. 9 provides@

Se#. 9. Exeution !" #otion or !" independent ation. , 4nal and e


18/19

)3 See Orders dated 6ar#h 8( &882 6a% )*( &882( id. at &*) &&) respe#tivel%G ,lias Su!!ons dated

;une &( &882( id. at &&1G and O5#er?s Return( id. at &&3. See also the Su!!ons served to the spouses

7asarte( id. at &+2( and the O5#er?s Return thereof( id. at &+'( after the spouses? surna!e "as a!ended

to read as spouses 7asarte instead as Sa$arte.

)9 See Si!fronio?s 6anifestation and Se#ond 6anifestation( id. at &&9/&&8.

)' Id. at &+8/&3&.

)2 See RTC Order dated Fe$ruar% 8( &888( id. at &29.

)8 Id. at )31.

1* Id. at )&3/)&9.

1& Id.

1) Id. at )1&/)11.

11 One of the Spouses 7asarte.

1+ Re#ords( pp. )1'/)18.

13 Id. at )3*.

19 Id.

1' See &st pae of Pre/Trial Order( id. at 1+2. The Ru4no ,ras de#lared in default in said Pre/Trial Order is

a#tuall% Rosendo ,ras. Ru4no 4led his ,ns"er toether "ith 0erva#io and the others.

12 Id. at 1+2/13*.

18 Id. at 1+8.

+* Id. at 1''/12).

+& Id. at +13/+18.

+) Id. at ++*/++)

+1 Id. at ++).

++ Id. at ++3.

+3 Id. at +3*.

+9 Supra note &.

+' C, rollo( p. 81.

+2 Id. at 83/&*&.

+8 Supra note 1.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_172660_2011.html#rnt49


19/19

3* Rollo( p. &8.

3& )+* Phil. 2&& -&82'G In this #ase( an SP, "as een#e( the litiation

"as #onsidered not #o!!en#ed $% the real part%/in/interest or $% one dul% authoried to do so( !akinthe entire pro#eedins $efore the lo"er #ourts null and void.

3) 0.R. No. &922*8( 6ar#h &*( )**9( +2+ SCR, 312( 33*/33&.

31 182 Phil. '11('+* -)***.

3+ Tan v. De la Vea( supra note 3) at 3+3.

33 =ood Te#hnolo% Corporation v. EHuita$le 7ankin Corporation( +8) Phil.&*9( &&9 -)**3.

39 Parti#ularl% the -& Co!plaint( re#ords( pp. &/'G -) ,ns"er( id. at '1/''G -1 respondents? 6anifestation

"ith Pra%er( id. at )1&/)11G and -+ petitioners? Counter/6anifestation( id. at )1'/)18.

3' Id. at +8/3*.

32 Id. at +8.

38 Carandan v. >eirs of De 0u!an( 0.R. No. &9*1+'( Nove!$er )8( )**9( 3*2 SCR, +98( +2' #itin

7alolo% v. >ular( +2& Phil. 182( -)**+ and ,dla"an v. ,dla"an( 0.R. No. &9&8&9( ;anuar% )*( )**9( +'8

SCR, )'3( )21.

9* Se#. 3. EJe#t of failure to appear. The failure of the plaintiJ to appear "hen so reHuired pursuant to the

ne

basbas vs. sayson, 2011 - judgment on the pleadings_summary judgment

Documents